Old New Agers

[maximus]

Old New Agers

I am just curious have others encountered the new age with fellow parishioners and it rearing its head at Catholic parishes? Also, I was amazed by the number of elderly Catholics into this. Bellow is part of my experience with some old new agers:

One parish in our area advertised presenting Jeff Cavins “ Journey Through the Bible”; this series is special for us because we took it together when we started to date. It was setup with three different sessions with individual facilitators we took a Monday session where our facilitators were a very nice couple. My wife and I alternated attending sessions since we have a toddler at home. My wife mentions, at her session that one older gentleman mentions the virtues of book “The Shack”, from listening to Catholic Answers podcasts on “The New Age Deception” I told my wife that the book had panned by the hosts as having some elements contrary to the faith. At the next session, which I attended, our fascinator couple could not attend and another couple who had been through our diocesan “Biblical Theology Program”; which was heavily into the Historical-Critical method and taught some un-orthodoxies. Anyway this same gentleman comes out with some neo-gnostic ideas that Jesus is the re-incarnation of Melchizedek and that he attends a weekly work shop
run by an ex-priest who is into the new age. The substitute couple mentioned they attended a seminary by Fr. Richard Rohr of “The Centering Prayer” movement. I was surprised about how much the laity is into these new-age ideas.

God Bless

 

[GrandmaRose]

Since you have a toddler, I’m assuming you are still quite young and maybe you don’t have very much of a “recent historical” perspective.

The “hippies” were born, for the most part, in 1946-50, and the “New Agers” followed soon after. Some of us born shortly before and after those dates are also included in those particular cultural phenomena.

We lived through tumultuous times with unprecedented changes that have battered and transformed our American culture, including the civil rights movement, the Vietnam years of war and protests, the beginnings (and flourishing) of the drug culture, the rock music revolution, the sexual revolution, the feminist movement, legalization of abortion, presidential and other public figure assassinations, the opening of the gay closet door – PLUS the changes from the post-reformation years of the Church through Vatican II and the post-VII years, including the more recent movement back into severe conservatism and orthodoxy.

I’m sure many, if not most, of those events are things you’ve only read about, or seen described in documentaries. However, having actually survived all of that, maybe one hallmark of our generation is that we are not afraid to at least investigate new philosophies and/or models of human life and behavior.

Maybe, just maybe, we’ve learned that there is more to life than rules, more to love than ordinary conventions, more to God than the narrow definitions given Him at times by those who think they can limit the Spirit.

Not everything labeled “new age” is dangerous or threatening or spawned from evil, and just because negative appraisals appear in the media, that doesn’t make them valid.

Your “old new agers” have certainly lived long enough to be able to evaluate a concept or thought or practice, appreciate the value that may be within and ignore the nonsense. The ability to discern the presence or absence of value is based on education, life experience and common sense, and we have plenty of that, guaranteed.

Not every thought a person has needs to be codified or sanctioned by some “authority.” People ARE different and have different histories-- and that doesn’t make them necessarily suspect.

 

[maximus]

Thank you GrandmaRose for your concise, frank, and insightful response. I put some responses on some of the issues you elucidated. This is an interesting topic to me at least.

PLUS the changes from the post-reformation years of the Church through Vatican II and the post-VII years, including the more recent movement back into severe conservatism and orthodoxy.

I have to look up what you mentioned as the post-VII years. As I young child I moved to Dominican Republic so as we educate our child I have been learning American History in more detail. Your response reflects what I have witnessed as resentment from some of the people of your generation towards orthodoxy. I definitely see this direction as a huge improvement necessary for church survival even at the expense of becoming a much smaller church.

However, having actually survived all of that, maybe one hallmark of our generation is that we are not afraid to at least investigate new philosophies and/or models of human life and behavior.

The “Old New Agers” most certainly did that, but it seems that they had almost a disregard about the natural consequences of following those philosophies. The serious Catholics of my generation I believe has taken a more academic approach towards the faith and can deduce where they philosophies can lead; sadly the majority of my generation has abandoned the Church altogether. At least your “Old New Agers” did not abandon the Church entirely and focused your efforts on Social Justice.

Maybe, just maybe, we’ve learned that there is more to life than rules, more to love than ordinary conventions, more to God than the narrow definitions given Him at times by those who think they can limit the Spirit.

Those narrow definitions we have are those from the gospels, the “Old New Agers” have gone way beyond that. One must have some care about some those spirits being embraced.

Your “old new agers” have certainly lived long enough to be able to evaluate a concept or thought or practice, appreciate the value that may be within and ignore the nonsense. The ability to discern the presence or absence of value is based on education, life experience and common sense, and we have plenty of that, guaranteed.

Sorry, but these “Old New Agers” theologically have shown themselves to be short on wisdom and common sense; too prideful about their own opinions. Caring more to learn and appreciate non-Christian and anti-Christian philosophies rather than the rich philosophies of the Church. From the gospels the Church was given to us as a guide; granted using sophistry anything can be argued against.

Not every thought a person has needs to be codified or sanctioned by some “authority.” People ARE different and have different histories-- and that doesn’t make them necessarily suspect.

They are suspect because the New Age philosophies separate one self from the Church and from Christian belief.

God Bless,

 

[GrandmaRose]

Thank you GrandmaRose for your concise, frank, and insightful response. I put some responses on some of the issues you elucidated. This is an interesting topic to me at least.

I have to look up what you mentioned as the post-VII years. As I young child I moved to Dominican Republic so as we educate our child I have been learning American History in more detail. Your response reflects what I have witnessed as resentment from some of the people of your generation towards orthodoxy. I definitely see this direction as a huge improvement necessary for church survival even at the expense of becoming a much smaller church.

The “Old New Agers” most certainly did that, but it seems that they had almost a disregard about the natural consequences of following those philosophies. The serious Catholics of my generation I believe has taken a more academic approach towards the faith and can deduce where they philosophies can lead; sadly the majority of my generation has abandoned the Church altogether. At least your “Old New Agers” did not abandon the Church entirely and focused your efforts on Social Justice.

Those narrow definitions we have are those from the gospels, the “Old New Agers” have gone way beyond that. One must have some care about some those spirits being embraced.

Sorry, but these “Old New Agers” theologically have shown themselves to be short on wisdom and common sense; too prideful about their own opinions. Caring more to learn and appreciate non-Christian and anti-Christian philosophies rather than the rich philosophies of the Church. From the gospels the Church was given to us as a guide; granted using sophistry anything can be argued against.

They are suspect because the New Age philosophies separate one self from the Church and from Christian belief.

God Bless,

Your response reflects what I have witnessed as resentment from some of the people of your generation towards orthodoxy.

This is a true statement, but please remember that in transitioning from the pre-VII church to the post-VII church, we were encouraged and taught that lay people had a right and obligation to both participate in parish decisions and administration, to trust our own properly formed consciences, to trust our own decisions regarding our spiritual lives, just as we made decisions in other aspects of our adult lives. We didn’t come up with this on our own – there was an entire post-conciliar movement by a large proportion of the clergy, particularly younger priests, to bring the Church out of the 19th century and into the 20th, through the new life and breath of the Spirit. Not all American priests nor parishioners were involved in this, to be sure, which I feel accounts for the current move toward conservatism – but in the parishes I lived in (in the American west), we had very forward-thinking Bishops and priests who led this movement.

*…but it seems that they had almost a disregard about the natural consequences of following those philosophies. …At least your “Old New Agers” did not abandon the Church entirely and focused your efforts on Social Justice. *

I honestly don’t know anyone who follows very much of what I believe you are calling the New Age philosophies. I meant my original response to say only that we are more open to considering other thoughts and approaches to life that may not be “approved” by the more orthodox. When you consider all the monumental changes that we HAD to make during the 1960’s, 70’s, 80’s, 90’s, I think it’s understandable that we are necessarily more open to broader thoughts. Very little in our lives remained stable or stagnant from the 1950’s on (those things I delineated in my first post). I personally find people born from about 1970 onward to be incredibly predictable, limited in the scope of their thinking, conventional and (sorry) boring (and that includes my own children, dear to me though they are). There is evidence that all cultures experience cyclical movement from conservative to liberal to conservative, and I’m sure we’re experiencing that now – but I also think there was a profound, universal shift in the 60’s that was a true watershed.

And yes, we have been concerned with social justice, which happens to be one of the center points of the Gospel. “Social justice” to us also includes women’s and minorities’ equality and rights, service to the poor and marginalized, efforts toward lasting peace – all issues where we may hear the right words from the Vatican but where those words are often not put into action.

I disagree with your final paragraph in that the “old new agers” have not abandoned the “rich philosophies of the Church” by investigation into other cultures’ ancient wisdom or newer ways of thought. Instead, we have not been afraid to consider the valid, worthwhile elements of both old and new, even if they haven’t been “approved” by Rome. The idea that ONLY the orthodox has value denigrates the infinite reach and mercy of God. It seems to me that your generation (i.e., born post-1970) wants to lock God up into tidy little boxes labeled “magisterially approved truth,” but haven’t we also been told that the Spirit breathes where He will? I think your (meaning the collective “you”) quite simply envision your God too small. After all, God doesn’t live only in the Catholic church or within Catholic philosophy. While everything that the Church may teaches may be absolutely true, it can’t teach ALL truth, as only God is all truth.

I don’t mean any disrespect in this discussion – we just obviously see things quite differently.

 

[maximus]

• I don’t mean any disrespect in this discussion – we just obviously see things quite differently.*
  You are very respectful and very articulate I appreciate your response as it helps me understand better where your generation is coming from. I hope that at least our love of Jesus and his Church is at least some common ground. Please forgive me if I have been disrespectful.

GrandmaRose;7333197:

I honestly don’t know anyone who follows very much of what I believe you are calling the New Age philosophies. I meant my original response to say only that we are more open to considering other thoughts and approaches to life that may not be “approved” by the more orthodox.

The new age philosophies have become very popular through the media channels provided by Oprah Winfrey and books like the “Secret”, “The Law of Attraction”, works by Eckhart Tolle, Elaine Pagels. For better insight, you can listen to the archived Catholic Answers radio shows where Sharon Lee Giganti “catholic.com/radio/calendar.php” is the guest and an expert on the New Age movement and their philosophies and warns against their serious draw backs.

GrandmaRose:

The idea that ONLY the orthodox has value denigrates the infinite reach and mercy of God. It seems to me that your generation (i.e., born post-1970) wants to lock God up into tidy little boxes labeled “magisterially approved truth,” but haven’t we also been told that the Spirit breathes where He will? I think your (meaning the collective “you”) quite simply envision your God too small.

Well they have seen cause and effects on the faith in Church and morals by those who embraced ideas out of bounds from orthodoxy. We have not seen a pretty picture and we wish reverence to God and beauty back in the Church and in its worship.

God Bless

 

[Sherry_G]

I was born in 1946. I admittedly did get way off track in the '60’s due to sin, pure and simple. Anytime I hear someone of my age group start out with “pre-VII and post VII” what I really hear is their own justification for sin as being somehow the fault of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Absolution for one’s own bad choices does not come from blaming a church council, sorry. Please, anyone who is using the crutch of VII, why not read about what the council actually resolved. Then, just make a good confession and come on home to the beauty of the Catholic church, the one true church started by Jesus Christ.

 

[maximus]

I was born in 1946. I admittedly did get way off track in the '60’s due to sin, pure and simple. Anytime I hear someone of my age group start out with “pre-VII and post VII” what I really hear is their own justification for sin as being somehow the fault of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Absolution for one’s own bad choices does not come from blaming a church council, sorry. Please, anyone who is using the crutch of VII, why not read about what the council actually resolved. Then, just make a good confession and come on home to the beauty of the Catholic church, the one true church started by Jesus Christ.

A little off topic, but valid observation. Bringing it relative to this case the Church has put out the document “Jesus Bearer of the Water of Life” vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20030203_new-age_en.html warning against the pitfalls New Age and its incompatibility with the Christian faith. Some choose to ignore it and bring New Age practices into the Church out of a sense of prideful defiance claiming that the are following their formed conscience, letting God out of the dogmatic box, and following the “Holy Spirit”. How would you feel if some of these practices happened at a Mass you attended or a Church Bible study.

 

[kenofken]

Your response reflects what I have witnessed as resentment from some of the people of your generation towards orthodoxy.

This is a true statement, but please remember that in transitioning from the pre-VII church to the post-VII church, we were encouraged and taught that lay people had a right and obligation to both participate in parish decisions and administration, to trust our own properly formed consciences, to trust our own decisions regarding our spiritual lives, just as we made decisions in other aspects of our adult lives. We didn’t come up with this on our own – there was an entire post-conciliar movement by a large proportion of the clergy, particularly younger priests, to bring the Church out of the 19th century and into the 20th, through the new life and breath of the Spirit. Not all American priests nor parishioners were involved in this, to be sure, which I feel accounts for the current move toward conservatism – but in the parishes I lived in (in the American west), we had very forward-thinking Bishops and priests who led this movement.

*…but it seems that they had almost a disregard about the natural consequences of following those philosophies. …At least your “Old New Agers” did not abandon the Church entirely and focused your efforts on Social Justice. *

I honestly don’t know anyone who follows very much of what I believe you are calling the New Age philosophies. I meant my original response to say only that we are more open to considering other thoughts and approaches to life that may not be “approved” by the more orthodox. When you consider all the monumental changes that we HAD to make during the 1960’s, 70’s, 80’s, 90’s, I think it’s understandable that we are necessarily more open to broader thoughts. Very little in our lives remained stable or stagnant from the 1950’s on (those things I delineated in my first post). I personally find people born from about 1970 onward to be incredibly predictable, limited in the scope of their thinking, conventional and (sorry) boring (and that includes my own children, dear to me though they are). There is evidence that all cultures experience cyclical movement from conservative to liberal to conservative, and I’m sure we’re experiencing that now – but I also think there was a profound, universal shift in the 60’s that was a true watershed.

And yes, we have been concerned with social justice, which happens to be one of the center points of the Gospel. “Social justice” to us also includes women’s and minorities’ equality and rights, service to the poor and marginalized, efforts toward lasting peace – all issues where we may hear the right words from the Vatican but where those words are often not put into action.

I disagree with your final paragraph in that the “old new agers” have not abandoned the “rich philosophies of the Church” by investigation into other cultures’ ancient wisdom or newer ways of thought. Instead, we have not been afraid to consider the valid, worthwhile elements of both old and new, even if they haven’t been “approved” by Rome. The idea that ONLY the orthodox has value denigrates the infinite reach and mercy of God. It seems to me that your generation (i.e., born post-1970) wants to lock God up into tidy little boxes labeled “magisterially approved truth,” but haven’t we also been told that the Spirit breathes where He will? I think your (meaning the collective “you”) quite simply envision your God too small. After all, God doesn’t live only in the Catholic church or within Catholic philosophy. While everything that the Church may teaches may be absolutely true, it can’t teach ALL truth, as only God is all truth.

I don’t mean any disrespect in this discussion – we just obviously see things quite differently.

We owe a debt of gratitude to people of your generation. You were the first and last sizable movement of the 20th Century to make a concerted push to free the human spirit and to break the grip of a military corporate empire which has reduced the value of human life to that of a commodity like any other. Sadly, you were unable to succeed, and a lot of mistakes were made. But an awful lot was placed on the shoulders of people who were in their early 20s or younger. You grew up in a much more sheltered time and had no real way to appreciate the power of drugs or some of the other forces of revolution which were in play at the time. My hat is off to you for what you were able to accomplish, and I’m sorry that my generation (1970) and later has not done all that we could have to learn from your mistakes and carry things forward. The forces of empire which you fought are now in near complete control, and have virtually conditioned critical thinking and courage out of the population altogether. We have, by and large, been groomed into a nation of slaves who think what we’re told to think, stand where we’re told to stand and to fight anyone who challenges our precious status quo.

 

[Sherry_G]

Ca Rose, you wrote:
" Instead, we have not been afraid to consider the valid, worthwhile elements of both old and new, even if they haven’t been “approved” by Rome. The idea that ONLY the orthodox has value denigrates the infinite reach and mercy of God. It seems to me that your generation (i.e., born post-1970) wants to lock God up into tidy little boxes labeled “magisterially approved truth,” but haven’t we also been told that the Spirit breathes where He will? "
The “we” that go off track and think outside of the Catholic church’s teachings is certainly not speaking for a majority of practicing Catholics that I have come in contact with. We as Catholics may have some questions or doubts, but to say that we denigrate the Magisterium of the Church is way off base.

 

[JimG]

I lived through the sexual liberation and political radicalization movements. They certainly did have the effect of loosening what was perceived to be the stranglehold of the old orthodoxies. Heck, I am still friends with some of the hippies of that day–old hippies, now.

Mostly, though, their supposed enlightenment and openness to experimentation turned out to be mostly an excuse for bad behavior and drug use. Drug use didn’t make them more intellectually open, and new age philosophies turned out to be old heresies warmed over.

In a lot of cases, their children were worse off for having no stable values (or even stable people) in their lives. And many of those children now turn back to the old orthodoxies, somewhat embittered that they were denied what should have been their own rich heritage.

Within the Church, young people who grew up in that period are often startled to find, by reading This Rock or Envoy or First Things, a deep Catholic intellectual history that was always there, but which was denied them. Even a bishop of that certain age once said, speaking of the Eucharist, something like, “I didn’t even know what it was till I went to seminary. I grew up in the love child era. All we did in PSR and CCD was draw pictures and talk about how God loved us.”